Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

well it didn't go that far.  he just said having more wives and concubines is whoredom and abomination.  But, if read as you do, when he says he commands, it doesn't say when I do command it's not really whoredom and abomination...

You seriously think God would command something he had labeled a whoredom?  Even when the prophet (can't remember which one) was commanded to take a prostitute, he was commanded to do so in marriage, not just live with her unmarried.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

No, not really..but the fact that JS at this point as no other offspring from other wives means (IMO) that the reason for polygamy was to bring up seed..doesn't really work.

Joseph Smith was murdered at a young age,  44.

Prior to that, he was constantly hounded by his enemies.

And he did not proceed to live the commandment fully until the angel's third appearance to him in 1842, a scant two years before his death.

How do you know that, had he been allowed to live n peace, he would not have been as prolific as Brigham Young or perhaps more so in raising up seed?

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What?  You called the general info line? That's not going to get you much. She probably just grabbed some random dude walking by to give his opinion. 

Oh man, our Church is so funny in some ways.  "well" says a nice meaning woman, "we better ask a priesthood holder the question.  He'll know the answer.  A sweet old lady like me, can't do that.  I just answer the phones." 

I think it's a bit weird to contact a secretary at the COB and expect her to explain the doctrines of the Church.

-Smac

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Have you read the FairMormon treatment of this matter by two volunteers (Michael Fordham and Ben McGuire)? That may help you understand these writings in context.

Hey thanks Scott.

A relevant part of the treatment:

Quote

It is probable that Jacob is effectively quoting this passage (or a precursor to it) from the Brass Plates, and whether or not some of those wives/concubines were given to these men by God is to an extent irrelevant to his point. In other words, the passage in the Book of Mormon and the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, quite possibly, are really not discussing the same issue at all.

If it's probable then it's probable.  But, it also might not be that he was quoting something from the Brass Plates at all.  And if this is a case of a quotation I'd say the linking it to the Deuteronomy passages in which kings taking many wives is a pretty weak attempt.  I find it more troubling because in the case of David D&C 132 says in only one case was David condemned.  But the explanation by Ben suggests it was for more than the one case. 

Quote

The fact that the Old Testament strictly forbade the practice of taking many wives for a king (both Solomon and David were kings) leads one to conclude that they were in violation of Torah.

This adds a complexity to consider, sure, but I don't think it relieves the contradiction.  In effect, he's saying, David did violate the Torah because he multiplied his wives and concubines basically using his position.  That make sense, actually, and I'd say this fits with Jacob 2.  But it still contradictions D&C 132. 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

You seriously think God would command something he had labeled a whoredom?  

No.  And, I think that's why many do not believe living plural marriage was a commandment in the early days of the church.  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

How many years had Joseph been living polygamy?  And, he had over 30 wives.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

You seriously think God would command something he had labeled a whoredom?  Even when the prophet (can't remember which one) was commanded to take a prostitute, he was commanded to do so in marriage, not just live with her unmarried.

No.  That's my point.  I find this as reason to reject D&C 132.  I also think OT scripture is in many cases suspect. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Good point. 

How do you screw up when you're dealing with an angel with sword?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

married women very happy?  well then, maybe polygamy is better than monogamy.

Maybe for them it is, afer all they freely chose it.  In no way is Bluebell or I suggesting that polygamy is better than monogamy.  In fact, I suspect she would point out how we believe as LDS that monogamy is the default mode and eternally has as much value as monogamy.  Polygamy is restricted in time and place and purpose in ways monogamy is not by God.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It's a TV show.  They're getting paid to appear however the producers of the show decide they should appear. 

There is also the book they they put out.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would depend on the reason, if we assume it was meant to just multiply biological offspring (and it is possible that many involved interpreted it in that fashion) then I would agree it likely got out of hand for some few (the vast majority had 2 wives, 5 was the high save for a very few outliers like BY) simply due to the logistics of caring for that many children and wives in that day and age.  Very different than the days of the Patriarch where children were guaranteed work force and an expansion of one's tribe, thus creating a safer and more resourceful community.

Otoh, it we are talking spiritual offspring, raising up God's seed unto him as the scripture actually states and not unto ourselves, then it could very well have been what was needed or at least not overall damaging, benefits equaling the costs.

I'm struggling to  unpack what you're saying.  If raising up seed to God does not include multiplying biological offspring, then I'm not sure what polygamy has to do with it in the first place.  What are spiritual offspring in the context of polygamy.  Isn't the Church today Joseph's spiritual offspring in some sense? 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Yes, clear sense of the text...

The Lord expresses His concern over the tenderness of his daughters, states repeatedly that multiple wives/concubines is an abomination and a whoredom, and then says that he might command us to do it anyway.

Crystal clear.

You are blatantly taking this out of context that and compounding that error with sarcasm.

The injury to the wives and children refers to what results from the unauthorized and unrighteous practice of taking more than one wife contrary to His commandments.

 

 

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was murdered at a young age,  44.

Prior to that, he was constantly hounded by his enemies.

And he did not proceed to live the commandment fully until the angel's third appearance to him in 1842, a scant two years before his death.

How do you know that, had he been allowed to live n peace, he would not have been as prolific as Brigham Young or perhaps more so in raising up seed?

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

Why didn't God stop that?  Surely the prophet prayed for deliverance.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well fair enough.  I'm not even thinking on legalizing polygamy, even though I agree it's probably on it's way.  But the two seem quite different to me.  

How so?  How are they "quite different?"  The legal definition of marriage has generally been constrained by A) number (two people only), B) gender (one man, one woman), C) consanguinity (kissin' cousins, the standard for which varies by state), D) age (also varies by state), E) mental competency (the standard for which also varies by state), F) consent (no coercion), and G) species (no human/non-human stuff).

Why is Item B above (gender) a constraint that could (and, per SCOTUS, under the Constitution must) be tossed out, but not Item A (number)?

What parts of the legal reasoning for the mandatory legalization of same-sex marriages is distinguishable from the legalization of polygamy?

Quote

Back when the legalizing SSM was being reviewed in 2008 for California, I thought it silly to try and stop marriage to loving consenting adults.  On that reasoning, I can't really find fault with polygamy either. 

Then how are they "different" under the law?

Quote

Then again, Bluebell made a convincing case, earlier in this thread, that even modern day polygamy has it's merits.  Watching TV apparently, you can find some women in polygamy to be quite happy, or very happy, I think she put it. 

Plenty of people are happy in unmarried relationships, too.  That doesn't mean we "legalize" them, though.

It sounds like you are on board with polygamy being legalized.  Not only do you expect it, you don't seem to object to it.  Is that right?

If that's the case, Carol Lynn Pearson will not be happy with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was murdered at a young age,  44.

Prior to that, he was constantly hounded by his enemies.

And he did not proceed to live the commandment fully until the angel's third appearance to him in 1842, a scant two years before his death.

How do you know that, had he been allowed to live n peace, he would not have been as prolific as Brigham Young or perhaps more so in raising up seed?

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

well except that 10 years or so earlier he married a gal who never produced seed for him. 

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

How do you screw up when you're dealing with an angel with sword?

Angel with a sword sounds like an empty threat to me.  What's he going to do slash me with his sword I can't feel.  Bring it on, buster.  Plus, we don't know that Joseph ever shook his hand or offered to.  If he shook his hand and he could feel it, then I'd still wonder why God would send an angel to kill me when all he had to do is get some guy out there who was wanting to kill me anyway.  I don't know,..in short the angel with the sword sounds silly to me.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are blatantly taking this out of context that and compounding that error with sarcasm.

The injury to the wives and children refers to what results from the unauthorized and unrighteous practice of taking more than one wife contrary to His commandments.

Nope, definitely still in context.  My study of the polygamous wives of Joseph and Brigham tells me that there was harm to the women involved even when it was supposedly commanded.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Angel with a sword sounds like an empty threat to me.  What's he going to do slash me with his sword I can't feel.  Bring it on, buster.  Plus, we don't know that Joseph ever shook his hand or offered to.  If he shook his hand and he could feel it, then I'd still wonder why God would send an angel to kill me when all he had to do is get some guy out there who was wanting to kill me anyway.  I don't know,..in short the angel with the sword sounds silly to me.

I agree...which is why I believe Joseph screwed this up big time.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?  How are they "quite different?"  The legal definition of marriage has generally been constrained by A) number (two people only), B) gender (one man, one woman), C) consanguinity (kissin' cousins, the standard for which varies by state), D) age (also varies by state), E) mental competency (the standard for which also varies by state), F) consent (no coercion), and G) species (no human/non-human stuff).

Why is Item B above (gender) a constraint that could (and, per SCOTUS, under the Constitution must) be tossed out, but not Item A (number)?

What parts of the legal reasoning for the mandatory legalization of same-sex marriages is distinguishable from the legalization of polygamy?

Then how are they "different" under the law?

Plenty of people are happy in unmarried relationships, too.  That doesn't mean we "legalize" them, though.

It sounds like you are on board with polygamy being legalized.  Not only do you expect it, you don't seem to object to it.  Is that right?

If that's the case, Carol Lynn Pearson will not be happy with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well wife just notified me that she is going to a book signing with Ms Pearson, so if she's not happy with me she can take it out on her.

Seriously, though. I haven't thought much of legalizing polygamy.  I'm just saying if as I consider it and it comes down to what it did for me regarding SSM, I might support it.  I'm all for consenting adults living as they deem necessary, as long as it doesn't hurt others. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How so?  How are they "quite different?"  The legal definition of marriage has generally been constrained by A) number (two people only), B) gender (one man, one woman), C) consanguinity (kissin' cousins, the standard for which varies by state), D) age (also varies by state), E) mental competency (the standard for which also varies by state), F) consent (no coercion), and G) species (no human/non-human stuff).

Why is Item B above (gender) a constraint that could (and, per SCOTUS, under the Constitution must) be tossed out, but not Item A (number)?

What parts of the legal reasoning for the mandatory legalization of same-sex marriages is distinguishable from the legalization of polygamy?

Then how are they "different" under the law?

Plenty of people are happy in unmarried relationships, too.  That doesn't mean we "legalize" them, though.

It sounds like you are on board with polygamy being legalized.  Not only do you expect it, you don't seem to object to it.  Is that right?

If that's the case, Carol Lynn Pearson will not be happy with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

My two cents would be that gender is a protected category in our anti-discrimination laws, but "three or more people" is not a protected category. An appeal to anti-discrimination laws that was effective in getting gay marriage passed would not seem to work in the case of polygamy. 

Having said that, I'm not sure what the compelling argument is for keeping polygamy illegal. What is the state's interest in that?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Why didn't God stop that?  Surely the prophet prayed for deliverance.

Why didn't God stop the eventual martyrdom of Christ's original apostles?

Quote

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Why didn't God stop the killing and stoning of the ancient prophets? Don't you think they might have prayed for deliverance?

How does Joseph having been killed make him less of a prophet than the apostles and prophets who lived anciently when they were also killed?

You asked me a question like this the other day pertaining to Mark Hofmann. I tried to explain then that God does not always intervene to prevent wrongdoing, that if He did so in each and every case, it would nullify the principle of moral agency.

Apparently, that answer didn't take when I gave it to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How many years had Joseph been living polygamy?  And, he had over 30 wives.  

You quite miss the point.

A scant two years is not a lot of time to "raise up seed" when you are constantly being hounded by your enemies, trying to administer a fledgling church and do all of the other things that appertained to his calling as the Prophet of the Restoration.

Are you serioulsy saying you can't see this?

 

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was murdered at a young age,  44.

Prior to that, he was constantly hounded by his enemies.

And he did not proceed to live the commandment fully until the angel's third appearance to him in 1842, a scant two years before his death.

How do you know that, had he been allowed to live n peace, he would not have been as prolific as Brigham Young or perhaps more so in raising up seed?

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

During his 17 year (mortal) marriage to Emma, they had 11 kids.  Roughly one every year and a half.

Joseph married his second wife in 1833.  Over a decade before his death.

Joseph married his third wife in 1838.  Six years before his death.

Three more wives in 1841.  He was married more than two years to each of them.

Eleven more wives in 1842.  Married more than a year to each of them.

Is it really your argument that he didn't have enough time to produce seed with any of those women?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You quite miss the point.

A scant two years is not a lot of time to "raise up seed" when you are constantly being hounded by your enemies, trying to administer a fledgling church and do all of the other things that appertained to his calling as the Prophet of the Restoration.

Are you serioulsy saying you can't see this?

 

And yet, with all that going on, he still had time to marry an average of one new wife PER MONTH during the last two years of his life.

It seems that if raising up seed was the goal, he might have slowed down on the weddings and worked on the accomplishing the goal.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

During his 17 year (mortal) marriage to Emma, they had 11 kids.  Roughly one every year and a half.

Joseph married his second wife in 1833.  Over a decade before his death.

Joseph married his third wife in 1838.  Six years before his death.

Three more wives in 1841.  He was married more than two years to each of them.

Eleven more wives in 1842.  Married more than a year to each of them.

Is it really your argument that he didn't have enough time to produce seed with any of those women?

Certainly with Fanny.  But then again, she left him around 1836 I believe.  So it was just a couple years.  And, that one seemed like a particularly sneaky affair--meaning it wasn't known by Emma.  If any consummating took place it was a in a barn.  Lucinda Harris also seems like a prime candidate to not really get involved with Smith, even if they married (I think one of the more disputed marriages).  So, Scott's point is possible.